Rehabilitation Outcomes After Anoxic Brain Injury: A Case‐Controlled Comparison With Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the functional outcomes of patients with anoxic brain injury (AnBI) compared with control patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) during inpatient rehabilitation. DESIGN: Matched case-controlled design. SETTING: Inpatient neurorehabilitation program. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen patients with AnBI and 15 patients with TBI. METHODS: Data of 15 patients with a primary diagnosis of AnBI were retrospectively reviewed and matched to 15 patients with TBI admitted within the same time frame on age, acute care length of stay, and functional status at admission. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Functional outcome was assessed by the use of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). RESULTS: Compared with the control patients with TBI, patients with AnBI achieved significantly lower FIM motor gain (16.3+/-15.6 versus 5.7+/-10.7, respectively) and efficiency scores (0.27+/-0.28 versus 0.06+/-0.13), discharge FIM cognition scores (25.9+/-5.9 versus 21.7+/-7.3), total FIM gain (22.5+/-19.6 versus 9.1+/-12.1), and total FIM efficiency scores (0.39+/-0.38 versus 0.10+/-0.16; all P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a slower rate of recovery for patients with AnBI compared with TBI, with physical recovery being slower than cognitive recovery as measured by the FIM during inpatient rehabilitation when matched according to preinjury characteristics and functional status at rehabilitation admission. Future studies on larger samples of patients with AnBI and TBI that use a case-controlled design and longer-term outcome measurement are warranted to further clarify the differences in functional outcomes between these groups and to assess whether optimal rehabilitation interventions differ for these groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".